Category Archives: Euthanasia

OPINION: I pity this Parliament.

It's had more knotty and divisive social issues to deal with than many others. Within months of its first sitting it was voting on not one, but two medicinal cannabis bills, and things only got more complicated from there.

Euthanasia, abortion, and drug reform followed.

This wave of difficult social legislation is partly a symptom of having a left-leaning government, which tend to have more of a passion for social reform than their right-wing counterparts.

It's also the result of contentious members' bills, like Chle Swarbrick'smedicinal cannabis bill, and David Seymour'sEnd of Life Choice Billbeing drawn.

But I don'tpity our politicians too much. After all, it's their job to work through these challenges on our behalf.

That's why the forthcoming euthanasia referendum is such a problem: we vote for politicians who vote for legislation, we don't vote for MPsonly to see them kick important votes back to us.

Many of these social issues get put to conscience votes, where MPs vote independently of their party. This was far more common in the days of First Past the Post when an MP represented an electorate, not just a party, but MMP has made it a rare thing.

The advent of the party vote has meant parties have a more powerful mandate than individual MPs. It's bad faith for an MP to cross the floor and vote directly against the party that put you in Parliament.

Conscience votes are difficult in and of themselves. At an induction course run for incoming MPs, many felt conflicted about whose conscience they were actually voting with: their own, or that of their electorate?

This becomes even more complicated when you consider that some MPs don't just represent geographical constituencies. They represent the views and interests of groups defined by religion, race, class, and gender.

ROSS GIBLIN

The euthanasia bill was passed thanks to the work of a cross party group.

For religious MPs it's even more difficult: what happens when the values of their faith collide with the wishes of their constituents?

Aupito William Sio'smoving speech on the first reading of abortion law reform explicitly touched on the tensions he feltasarepresentative forMngere, Pacific peoples, and the values of Christianity.

He voted for the bill in the end, but only after working through his constituencies' complex, overlapping andconflicting interests.It was refreshing to see an MP openly wrestle with the fact he represented many different constituencies, each with its own conscience.

Other MPs have decided to poll their electorates, or conduct elaborate listening campaigns to work out which way to go. This has been positive for some: itforges stronger links between electorates and MPs in the style of First Past the Post.

Other MPs have used the opportunity of multiple conscience votes to brush up on their lobbying skills,forming cross-party groups to discuss issues, lobby colleagues and get bills passed.

An incredibly successful example of this is the group of MPs that turned David Seymour from a party of one into a bloc of 69 MPs that eventually voted for his End of Life Choice Bill.

Our political system has groaned under the pressure of this barrage of difficultvotes. The euthanasia bill was filibustered through a 16 month-long select committee.

MPs are exhausted too. Agonising over euthanasia is much more stressfulthat blandly speechifying on the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Bill (don't ask).

That's a problem. The brewing culture war suggests our Parliament is likely on the cusp of a wave of important social legislation and our MPs should be ready to deal with it, not kick it down the road.

Other issues, like gay conversion therapy the barbaric practice of psychologically "converting" gay people straight are crying out for Parliamentary debate, and our nimble political system shouldn't be afraid of launching into the fray.

Excerpt from:

Two years in, Parliament groans under the weight of difficult social lawmaking - Stuff.co.nz

For a 27-year-old lobbyist, Brooke van Velden has claimedremarkableaccess to Parliament's halls of power.

She has counselled the concerns ofMPs behind closed doors. Shehas become practised at intercepting politicians en route to their next meeting. She knows thepolitical ructions which spoiledan important parliamentary committee earlier this year.

And she's been called a spy and a snake. She's suffered withering glares from across the floor of the House.One time, abuse was hurled by a cohort of well-known politicians who she won't name in a way that shows they see her "as a threat".

A threat, because van Velden has been pushing to change the way people can die.

Chris McKeen/Stuff

Bernard Willems will likely die before the End of Life Choice bill goes to referendum.

READ MORE:*Euthanasia bill passes 69-51, sending the final decision to a referendum*Lecretia Seales' mother wants MPs to look past 'emotive rubbish'*Euthanasia bill very likely to pass, Stuff poll of MPs finds*What Labour will worry about with a euthanasia referendum

ACT MPDavid Seymour has been the sponsor, the public face, and the driver,of the End of Life Choice bill,for four years leading a loosecollective of cross-party MPs with the backing ofsupporters from outside Parliament -an effort which culminated inthe bill passingits third reading this week. Van Velden says the victory showsSeymour has managed to gain support across the political divide.

But van Velden can claim that kudos too. Behind the scenes, Seymour'spolitical acolytehadbeen shoring up the crucial 61 votes, and this week 69MPs votedthe bill through. Whether it becomes law will be decided at apublic referendum atthe 2020 election.

On Wednesday morning, the billhours from itsfinal parliamentary hurdle,Van Velden sits in aconference room on the eighth floor of Bowen House,a tower overlooking the Beehive.

On one side of this quiet floor,National Party outcast and now-independent MP Jami-Lee Ross has an office. Around a curved corridor of empty offices, there's an open-plan room in whichthe four-strong ACT party operation lives.Van Velden's desk is cluttered.

ROBERT KITCHIN/STUFF

ACT staffer Brooke van Velden, who has been a lobbyist, press secretary, political staffer, and a parliamentary official for the End of Life Choice bill.

The bill has consumed both her professional and personal life she can't avoid a conversation about itfor two years. Yet as the final vote looms, she appearsrelaxed.

"It is hard on the last day because there's not so much that you can do now. Most people would have completely solidified their position.

"We do have a meeting with an MP in our last push to persuade them." (For the record, van Velden won't say who.)

The End of Life Choice bill was brought to Parliament bySeymour and drawn from abiscuit tin in June 2017 the typicalselectionprocess for members'bills.

If passed into law, itwould create a legal framework for assisted death, otherwise called euthanasia. After some revision, this will only apply to people who are terminally ill with fewer than six months to live. There's numerousconditions and regulations, but in essence a doctor will be able to facilitate a person's death.

ROSS GIBLIN/STUFF

ACT staffer Brooke van Velden standing behind MPs speaking on their support of the End of Life Choice bill, which passed its third reading on Wednesday night.

Van Velden describes the bill as the most scrutinised in Parliament's history and it's true theeuthanasia debatehas persisted in New Zealand for more than two decades, when the first attempt to legalise the practice came in 1995. The End of Life Choice bill is the third to reach parliament.

It has been contentious.The letters pages of newspapers around the country have been alive with fears and hopes about the bill. There's been a 16-month parliamentary hearing,accusations of misinformation, and claims of disproportionate influence from religious groups.

Throughout all of this, van Velden has been at nearly 30public meetings, read through hundreds of public submissions on the bill, helped draft law, and either corresponded or held face-to-face meetings with about half of the country's MPs.

Many who aired theirviewsin Parliament have shared personal stories, of loved ones who suffered or rescinded an earlier wish to die.

National MP Maggie Barry, who has campaigned against the bill, often speaksof the decade-long journey she shared with her mother, who had dementia.

Van Velden does not have one of these stories. The euthanasia dilemmaappealed to her for one reason:choice.

A committed social liberal from Auckland's North Shore, she switched from being a Green Party voter to an ACT supporter while studying economics and international trade at Auckland University. The ability for free markets to lift countries from hardship was a revelation for her, she says.

She met political pundit and lobbyistMatthew Hooton in a class, andheoffered her a job at his public relationsfirmExceltium,which hadworked with ACT.

Sheran for ACT in the Auckland Central electorate in 2017,losing to National'sNikkiKaye.

After a move to Wellington, Seymour told her she had one job: get the End of Life Choice bill passed.

Lobbying is often considered a dark art, practiced by shadowy power brokersseeking to influencepoliticianson behalf of wealthy clients. Van Veldenshies away from the term (and doesn't live up to the shadowy mystique in any event,herbright pinkpantsuitis an outfitshe's recognised for around Parliament).

Seymour, being an opposition MP and not a Government minister, has a severely limited number of staff to help usher the bill through Parliament.So van Velden has also beenpress secretary, political staffer, and a parliamentary official for the bill, all at the same time.

"We haven't tried to pull the wool over anyone's eyes," she says."The most successful lobbyists are the ones you don't know about."

ROBERT KITCHIN/STUFF

Brooke Van Velden, along with David Seymour, were the brains behind the End of Life Choice bill.

Van Veldensays she madeherself useful to MPs who wanted to know more,meeting them in their offices, providing evidence, and briefing groups on amendments to the bill.

A tunnel passage between Bowen House and the Beehivebecame a favourite spot for grabbing the ear of politicians passing through and assessing their stance.

Always, van Velden kept acrucial calculation in mind.How many do we have in support?

Late in 2018, the bill's passage looked troubled. The outcome of theJustice Select Committee, a group of cross-party MPs facing the mammoth task of taking in 39,000 submissions on the bill,was challenged by political factions within.

Some of the strongest opponents to the bill were around the table..

1 NEWS

MPs on both side of the Right to Life Bill debate say the fight will go on ahead of next years referendum

Such a committee recommends alterations to a bill so it can progress further. It was clear the deadlocked committee would offer no recommendations.

The MPs held responsiblefor the stalemate can be guessed, but van Velden, who is sworn to secrecy under parliamentary rules,won't provide names.

To combat this, Seymour and van Veldendid something unusual. They released a "sponsor's report" on the bill, making their own recommendations, includinglimiting assisted death to the terminally ill only. It was a serious compromise, and a big signal to MPs they knew were concerned: this bill will change.

It came with regret.

"There are a number of genuinely suffering people with neurodegenerative diseases that now won't ever be able to access the bill," van Veldensays.

"I've engaged with (members)of the public who have said that their only other option is to commit suicide. That breaks my heart."

ROSS GIBLIN/STUFF

ACT MP David Seymour speaking after the End of Life Choice bill passed its third reading on Wednesday night. Behind, Brooke van Velden keeps tabs on what's being said.

It was part of, as another MP closely involved with the bill's support described it, a careful threading of the needle between NZ First's desire for a public referendum and the Green's concerns over the impact ondisabled New Zealanders.

The referendum was another compromise to ensure its survival.

Van Velden spent four months preparing the changes to the bill. Sheasked for access to the parliamentary counsel office,and the legal divisionsat the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Justice. Each word of the amendments were weighed for their impact, she says, and the changes taken to on-the-fence MPs to confirm their support.

She was also granted permission to sit on the floor of the House, a role generally filled by Government policy staffers.As more than 100 proposedamendments (many submitted by the bill's opponents)were cycled through,MPs would send memos across the floor with questions, she says.

She would also be sending critiques of the various amendments across the floor to her boss, Seymour.

It was during this time a number of MPs shouted abuseat her in an adjacenthallway, she says.

"Emotions, at times, can run high, with people who have a fervent opposition to the bill."

After a night's celebration with the bill's supporters, on Thursday,van Velden hada headache from champagne and a "surreal" feeling that was yet to wear off.

Her work was earning her compliments. National MP Chris Bishop, part of the group pushing for the bill, said van Velden had done "a lot of the grunt work".Her former electorate opponent, Kaye, praised her in a Facebook post.

NZ First MP Tracey Martin commended her during the bill's third reading, saying she was surprised to find herself thanking the ACT party.

Seymour, speaking toStuff, says van Velden has displayed a"formidable set of skills" in helping past the bill.

As forher future, Seymour says the focus shifts to the next election.

"Who know what roles people might play in the aftermath of that," he says.

Van Velden, committed to seeing thedebate through to the referendum, is also thinking ahead. There may be another pitch for an even greater role in Parliament.

A seat in the House.

View original post here:

Formidable Brooke van Velden: The End of Life Choice bill lobbyist you've probably never heard of - Stuff.co.nz

The owner of a struggling safari park in Crimea is giving more than thirty bears to save them from euthanasia.

Oleg Zubkov, the owner of the Taigan Lion Park near Simferopol, said he is seeking new homes for the animals because he can no longer afford to feed them.

It comes after inspectors ordered the safari park, which is famous for its large collection of lions, found violations of veterinary regulations and ordered it closed for three months.

Speaking on his Youtube channel, the Lion Man, Mr Zubkov said he could not afford to feed and look after the animals without the revenue from ticket sales and was left with no choice but to find them new homes or put them down.

Twelve lions and tigers will be moved to other zoos shortly, and a final decision will be made about shooting 30 bears from the park, he says in the video.

Ive forced into these extreme measures because there are no other options left, he said.

Read more here:

Private zoo owner in Crimea pleads for public to take 30 of his bears so he won't have to euthanise them - The Telegraph

Each breath Bernard Willems takes is a battle. Even connectedto oxygen 24/7, his speech is punctuated with pauses and gaspsand he can barely walk more than a few metres without struggling.

Two and a half years ago, the 77-year-old was diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a progressive and incurable lung disease marked by stiffening and scarring of the lung tissue. At diagnosis, he was told he hadtwo to three years to live.

Earlier this year,Willems'condition deteriorated to the extent thathe tried to take his own life.

Chris McKeen

Bernard Willems, 77, is living with an incurable and progressive lung disease which robs him of the ability to breathe properly. He is telling his story to give people 'food for thought' in the euthanasia debate.

The Auckland man wantsto "die with dignity"through assisted dying something which could be afforded toNew Zealanders following the passing of the End of Life Choice Bill in Parliament this week.

READ MORE:*Parliamentary report on End of Life Choice Bill weighs 40,000 public submissions* MPs get emotional at End of Life Choice Bill reading* Palliative care specialists reject End of Life Choice bill

MPs voted in favour of the bill 69 votes to 51 on Wednesday evening, sending the final decision to a referendum at the 2020 general election.

If it were made law,the billwould allow a person with "terminal illness that is likely to end the person's life within six months"to request euthanasia.

It will be too late for Willems, butif it were law tomorrow hewouldn't waste a day without applying, he says.

IAIN MCGREGOR

The End of Life Choice bill passed its third reading in Parliament this week, 69 votes to 51. The final decision will go to the New Zealand public in a referendum.

The Dutch expat's mind is sharpand he still boastsa wicked sense of humour, but his liferevolves around his illness. While he isn't in pain, just being awake and struggling to breathe is a "nightmare".

In February, he was well enough totravelthe length of New Zealand alone.

By July, just weeks after handing over the reinsof hiscommercial and residential interiors company to a new owner, Willemswas admitted to a hospice for palliative (end of life) care.

In the months following, his condition and quality of lifeworsened, landing him back in hospicein October.

Willemsis back at home on the North Shore, where he lives aloneabove his former business, and receivesdaily help toshowerand getdressed.

MONIQUE FORD/STUFF

ACT party leader David Seymour first introduced the End of Life Choice Bill in 2017. (file photo)

He says he will be lucky to see the new year.

Willemssees it as his duty to share his "unwanted second life" with people tohelp the discussion around assisted dying.

Advocates for the bill, like Willems, want the right to die on their own terms.But the highly emotive bill drew criticism that assisted dying would'erode the trust' between doctor and patient.

Opponents have also raised concerns about coercion, saying the bill lacks proper safeguards to protect vulnerable people frompressure to choose assisted dying.

Under the bill, the patient must suggest assisted dying, andmake a request to their doctor who can conscientiously object.

Palliative care specialists are among those who oppose the bill, andNew Zealand Medical Association isopposed to doctor-assisted suicide, which it regards as "unethical".

But Willemsis unwavering.

He says his sister died in hospice in Holland following a battle with breast cancer 12 years ago where, surrounded by friends, she "pushed the button herself" when it was time to go.

Willems, an "independent, stubborn old Dutchman", says it is a person's human right to make the decision she did.

"Those against [the bill], if in my situation for a day, would change their minds very quickly."

WHERE TO GET HELP

If you or someone you know is at immediate risk of harm, call 111.

Need to talk? Free call or text 1737 24/7for support from a trained counsellor

Lifeline(open 24/7) - 0800 543 354

Depression Helpline (open 24/7) - 0800 111 757

Samaritans (open 24/7) - 0800 726 666

Suicide Crisis Helpline (open 24/7) - 0508 828 865 (0508 TAUTOKO). This is a service for people who may be thinking about suicide, or those who are concerned about family or friends.

Youthline(open 24/7) - 0800 376 633. You can also text 234 for free between 8am and midnight, or emailtalk@youthline.co.nz

Read more here:

Living an 'unwanted second life': One man's fight to die with dignity - Stuff.co.nz

The New Zealand Parliament voted in favor of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide Wednesday, sending the bill to a referendum next year.

The End of Life Choice Bill was passed November 13 by a vote of 69-51.

It would allow terminally ill persons who have six months or fewer to live to be euthanized or to themselves take a lethal dose of prescribed drugs, on the condition that two doctors agree the person is well-informed.

An earlier version of the bill would have allowed those with severe or incurable conditions to seek euthanasia or assisted as well.

The bill was introduced by David Seymour of ACT New Zealand, a crossbench, libertarian party.

It is supported by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of the New Zealand Labour Party.

Maggie Barry, a member of parliament of the opposition New Zealand National Party, said the bill is dangerous and permissive, according to Reuters.

A 2017 inquiry prepared by the health committee of the 51st New Zealand Parliament (which was controlled by the National Party) did not recommend the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Weve tried to distil all the arguments and our recommendation to both the Parliament and the people of New Zealand is to read this report and come to a deeper understanding of whats been asked around assisted suicide and euthanasia, Simon OConnor, then-chair of the health committee, said in August 2017.

When the National Party was governing, it concluded that the public would be endangered by legalization of the practices.

Submissions cited concern for vulnerable people, such as the elderly and the disabled, those with mental illnesses, and those susceptible to coercion. Others argued that life has an innate value and that introducing assisted dying and euthanasia would explicitly undermine that idea. To do so would suggest that some lives are worth more than others. There were also concerns that, once introduced, eligibility for assisted dying would rapidly expand well beyond what was first intended, the report of the health committee of the 51st parliament read.

See more here:

New Zealand to hold referendum on euthanasia, assisted suicide - Catholic Herald Online

On Wednesday night, New Zealand MPs voted to adopt the end of life choice bill despite any number of warnings that it is a dangerous piece of work. It is risky to disabled people and unsafe to all.

In 2016, Canada passed euthanasia legislation and a consortium of appalled disabled Canadians fought a desperate rearguard action to bring in a vulnerable persons standard (VPS). Wed not need that sort of thing, I thought. Clearly I was complacent. Disabled Australians, Canadians and Americans are appalled at euthanasia bills while British, Irish and Scots are incandescent.

I feel betrayed by Parliaments vote. Do we need something like a VPS here, for disabled New Zealanders I wonder?

Now all that stands between us and this bill is a referendum scheduled to coincide with our next general election, in 2020. Then there may be no way for the community of disabled people like me (25% of New Zealands population), to feel safe from wrongful death.

The law creates a risk to individuals in our community of disabled people and to our community as a whole. How can any MP be able to agree to a measure that endangers a whole community that they are not a member of? Our legislative safeguards have stepped into the shadows and too many MPs think thats an acceptable trade-off. A friendly QC commented on my vulnerability to the law thus: Youre toast. Me and how many other disabled people?

Our concerns about the bill are many. They include that the bill cannot and does not make firm distinctions between personal illness and disability or between terminal illness and chronic conditions, or between terminal illness and depression or other mental illness. It relies on prognosis and diagnosis, which are imprecise arts. It doesnt protect against coercion, competency or consent abuses.

It doesnt allow for a cooling-down period like Oregon or Victoria have. Safeguards are vague and lax. Worse still, theres a sense that a certain level of wrongful death is acceptable.

Nearly 39,000 people wrote public submissions as the bill went through the parliamentary processes, and over 90% of them said: No, no legalising euthanasia thanks. From a total population of nearly 5 million, it was the largest number of submissions ever to any proposed New Zealand law. But even this clear response had painfully little impact on MPs, who seemed to respond to other stimuli or were mired in their individualistic tragedy narratives. The suffering they knew of somewhere else, the individual stories or the 10% who said Yes change it was much more important.

Yes, there are many individual stories both for and against this bill. All deserve respect because telling them takes effort. But theres more to good law than basing it on individual stories. Its about the collective impact on our community. It should be good, safe law for all. Thats what MPs are there to do but didnt.

And theres the referendum to come. The question in it just says, do you support this bill? Too vague.

Its to be hoped that the population at large can do a sound job, but that depends on the quality and range of information they get. MPs had a huge range of sound, factual information. But judging from their voting record, many clearly disregarded heaps of it. Instead leaving Janet and John Voter to do the work.

Who knows if they will get good information to enable choice. Maybe theyll vote yes because they think this bill allows things that are already legal, like adequate pain relief. Polls on the issue show worrying levels of awareness. So I hope the information providers can do a great job for Janet and John Voter, who really need it.

I convene Not Dead Yet Aotearoa, the nationwide disabled-people-run network. We have opposed the legalisation of euthanasia for some years now. The opposition we express is consistently based on concerns that society is full of negative, biased and discriminatory attitudes and behaviours, so that people think disabled lives are less worthy. Given this attitude as a basis, the state provides really limited support for us to live well. So its disturbing when laws are put up that mean the state will provide the means to die, not live. But thats where we are now. We arent dead yet and we dont want state-sanctioned death support.

Link:

New Zealand's euthanasia bill is a step into the unknown for disabled people - The Guardian

This week New Zealands parliamentarians will vote on the third reading of the End of Life Choice Bill.

Much public discussion on the merits of euthanasia has centred around the role of the medical practitioner as healer. Some doctors and conscientious objectors worry that physician-assisted suicide will alter the relationship between doctors and their patients. They argue it is unethical, often invoking the Hippocratic oath.

The oldest code of medical ethics, the oath dates to around the fourth century BC and is still sworn by doctors today. It specifically forbids physicians from administering lethal drugs, among its other precepts.

Some critics of the bill present religious and moral objections against euthanasia, while proponents have focused on the trauma and pain of terminally ill patients and their families. All these arguments have a long history.

Read more: In places where it's legal, how many people are ending their lives using euthanasia?

Like the Hippocratic oath, euthanasia (in its literal meaning of good death in ancient Greek) first appeared around the fourth and third century BC. Ancient Roman emperors, at deaths door, were known to consume wine, drugs and other palliatives to ease their dying. Good emperors were believed to deserve a dignified death, and often staged them.

In pre-modern Europe, experiencing a good death and intentionally shortening the agony of dying were separate matters. From 1400 on, there was a thriving trade in advice books on the art of dying. These instructed readers on how to prepare their souls for a good death and the Christian afterlife.

Prayers, rituals and information about what to expect offered practical guidance for attaining salvation. Christian theologians saw euthanasia as a blessed and peaceful death of the faithful.

Whether and how people sought to hasten or ameliorate death is less clear. Scholars only began considering the doctors role in enabling euthanasia in the late 16th century.

In 1605, English lawyer, statesman and natural philosopher Francis Bacon wrote that the physicians office extends to matters of health as well as dying. In his words, a physician ought not only to restore health, but to mitigate dolours, and torments of Diseases. If there was no hope of the patients recovery, everything should be done to make a fair and easie passage out of life.

Bacon called this fair and easie passage euthanasia. Importantly, he distinguished between outward euthanasia and the souls peaceful transition to the afterlife. While the latter remained the purview of the spiritual realm, Bacon placed the former within medicines province.

Until recently, historians believed active euthanasia did not exist in pre-modern Europe, but historian of medicine Michael Stolberg has challenged this notion.

A physician in 1660s Antwerp, Michiel Boudewijns, wondered whether doctors could help their terminal patients die. While moved by patients in agony, Boudewijns urged Christian doctors to observe the fifth commandment and the Hippocratic rule of do no harm. He cautioned his colleagues against undertaking risky procedures and acting on compassion to expedite death in hopeless cases.

Read more: How hypothetical designs can help us think through our conversations about euthanasia

Physicians also feared patients would lose trust in them if they knew they shortened dying patients lives. It was not until the late 17th century that facilitating dying sparked public debate among scholars. In 1678, Caspar Questel, a Silesian lawyer active in Saxony, wrote about assisted dying in the homes of ordinary people.

Methods to accelerate dying ranged from acts of faith and folklore to illegal actions. Questel had discovered that family members, nurses, nuns and other carers removed the pillow from under the head of the dying person. It was a widespread custom that was believed to quicken death.

Other forms of assistance included opening a window so the soul of the dying person would be encouraged to leave the body and meet God, placing lit candles around the gravely sick and placing the dying on the ground or putting them outdoors. More fatal actions involved suffocating the dying with a pillow or cutting their veins. Exercising empathy for the suffering of the dying was weighed against the risk of being charged for their premature deaths.

In present-day New Zealand, if this weeks vote is in favour of euthanasia, the option for assisted dying will still need to be ratified in a referendum next year.

Clearly, cultural customs, prevailing medical ethics and beliefs about death and the afterlife have evolved over time. Today discussions about euthanasia involve a wider range of participants than in pre-modern Europe. The distance between learned professionals and everyone else has narrowed. Civil rights, legal precedents and protections have given us a new language and ethics through which to understand fraught issues concerning our health, body and death.

Follow this link:

As NZ votes on euthanasia bill, here is a historical perspective on a 'good death' - The Conversation AU

OPINION:Now that New Zealanders have been passed the responsibility of decidingwhether euthanasia is to be legalised it is time to take the passion out of an impassioned debate.

Between now and when the referendum is held next year we have a moral duty to put aside our prejudices andlisten with an open mind to all sides.

We need to be conscious there will be those in thisdebateseeking to hijack ouremotions. Yet we also need to understand they'll be doing sofrom a position of absolute sincerity.

At its most basic it appears an easy choice. Should we be allowed to end our lives when we are terminally illand death is just six months away, or should we not.

READ MORE:* Euthanasia bill passes 69-51,the final decision a referendum* Historic right to die bill passes first hurdle* Should Kiwis have the right to die with 'dignity'?* Jackson: Dying with dignity should be a right

The issue is much deeper than that. Itbelies the simple yes or no answer a referendum requires.

It's the right to dignity in your final days versus therisk of being coercedinto ending it.It's individual freedom versus thestate's duty to protect the individual and the ability of medical scienceto keep us alive versus a subjective judgment on what quality of life we must have to make it worth living.

ROSS GIBLIN

David Seymour celebrates his euthanasia bill passing on Wednesday night. It will now be included on a referendum at next year's election.

It could also bethat once you've familiarised yourself with the details of the billyou realise you support euthanasia yetreject thisapproach as flawed. The same could be true for the reverse.

Thereare certainly cases where denying someone theability to end their own life appears cruel and unusual. Few could argue lawyer Lecretia Seales' last days alive weren't made more painful by her inability to end it.

The manner of herdeath was heartbreaking. Not just because of the pain she was inbut also because of how much she sacrificed pushing for change, even when it was clear she would never benefit from that change.

Her death will certainly be used to argue for the right to end your life. Suffering like that endured by Sealesis often compared to how we treat sick animals, a demonstration that animals are treated more humanely.

Yet such a statement that so aggressively grabs for your sense of outrage must also include that this "humanity" is largely extended to avoid personal cost.

Each year millions of animals die grislydeaths in this country. From any objective viewpoint they are not treated better than humans. Not even close.

Being open to understanding the gravity of this decision meansacknowledging the validity of qualified opinions, no matter how much they clash with your values.

As a GP, National MP Shane Reti's views must be recognised as having insights those outside the medical field may not be able to appreciate.

When he says he would not want the spectre of euthanasia hanging over every consultation, we should take that on board as reasonable and consider how this bill could change the doctor-patient relationship.

Yet his other comment that the world would have lost some "brightness" had Beethoven ended his life six months earlyto relievethe suffering his cirrhosis was causing, is an appeal to our emotions rather than our logic.

Euthanasia will not result in a dearth of high culture. And surely, as a nation, we don't want to prolong an individual's suffering simply to increase the range of amusements available to us.

Whatever decision the referendum yields, that we are even having it shows the current system is not meeting our needs.

It is time to talk about what those needs are. Strip away the fears, strip away the emotions, look past the simplistic arguments, keep it reasonedand be prepared to listen.

Then let your decision come from that.

Continued here:

Euthanasia referendum best approached with a cool head and open mind - Stuff.co.nz

In 2014, my terminally ill wife, Lecretia Seales, informed me that she would like to have a choice about how she died. She was diagnosed with a brain tumour in 2011, and after three years, her treatments were no longer effective. She had come to accept that her death was inevitable.

She had watched Terry Pratchetts lecture, Shaking Hands with Death, and she believed, like Pratchett, that she should be able to have a say about how her death might happen.

I am not afraid of dying, but I am petrified by what may happen to me in the lead-up to my death, Lecretia said at the time. My greatest fear is that my husband will have a mad wife to deal with, like Mr Rochester in Jane Eyre. As far as Im concerned, if I get to a point where I can no longer recognise or communicate with my husband, then for all intents and purposes, I will already be dead.

Lecretia was an accomplished law reformer who had worked for two New Zealand prime ministers. She sensed an injustice, and she decided to challenge the government for the right to be assisted to die.

In May 2015, Seales v Attorney General was front page news. My wife was pulled into a media maelstrom, and her family and I were reluctantly dragged in with her.

By the time the court case ended, Lecretia was confined to a wheelchair and in rapid decline. It took seven days for the final ruling to be delivered to her, and it was provided to us under a 24-hour embargo. She did not get the ruling she sought. And that night, the last of her energy expended, she died, aged 42.

Although the case did not go her way, Justice Collins made several significant and helpful rulings:

Between 5% and 8% of all suicides in New Zealand are attributable to people avoiding the worst of their terminal illnesses. An assisted dying law might help prevent people taking their own lives.

Evidence from both sides showed that palliative care could not alleviate all suffering. Like medicine, palliative care is not perfect and will occasionally fail us.

Lecretia was a competent individual who was not vulnerable. If a law were available, her desire to use it should be respected, and her competence not questioned.

On Wednesday night, the end of life choice bill passed its third and final reading, with 69 votes in favour and 51 against. David Seymour the bills sponsor and leader of a party-of-one has achieved an unprecedented outcome, though not without compromise.

MPs from National and Labour, the two major parties, had a range of concerns and were free to vote according to their conscience, while the Green party insisted that their eight votes would be given only if the bill were restricted to the terminally ill. In response, Seymour narrowed the focus of the bill to ensure support without losing its general tenor.

The final version of the bill restricts access to assisted dying to terminally ill New Zealanders, who are suffering intolerably, who are mentally competent, who are over 18, and whose death is reasonably foreseeable within six months. All of these criteria must be met.

A doctor is not allowed to suggest assisted dying. The request must be initiated by and pursued by the patient. The doctor is obliged to stop the process should they have even the slightest suspicion the patient is being coerced. Doctors who fail to follow the letter of the law would face criminal sanctions.

Anyone attempting to coerce someone would continue to be guilty of a serious crime.

New Zealand First, another minority party, pledged their nine votes on one condition: that the bills enactment is subject to a general referendum. This condition was attached to the final version of the bill last month, and that bill was passed into law on Wednesday night.

New Zealand will have a referendum on the end of life choice bill within the next 12 months. New Zealanders are being asked to vote on a fully drafted law that has been forged in the fire of two years of heated parliamentary debate. They can either accept the law as written, or reject it.

If public support holds, it should pass. In 2018, a University of Otago researcher reviewed the history of all assisted dying polls in New Zealand and concluded that support for some form of assisted dying legislation averages at 68%, with 15% opposed.

Today, Lecretia is back on the front pages of New Zealands newspapers, almost five years after her death. When I look at her now after so long, I see two women: the woman I knew and loved, and the woman now widely known to many as a symbol of compassion and personal freedom. She was so brave. She took a deeply personal time in her life and made it public. On Wednesday, her actions helped change history, and I couldnt be more proud of her. She may yet change the world.

Matt Vickers is the widower of assisted dying campaigner Lecretia Seales, and the author of Lecretias Choice (Text Publishing)

Excerpt from:

Years after her death, my wife may yet change New Zealand's law on euthanasia - The Guardian

By Peter Wilson*.

Analysis: The government moves cautiously on new gun laws, a politically acceptable education shake-up is announced, there's a solution to the Indian partner problem and Parliament sends the End of Life Choice Bill to a referendum.

It's been another busy week in politics. Photo: 123RF

The government began the week by cautiously proposing new gun control laws.

The Firearms Prohibition Orders it wants to put in place are intended to stop those with serious convictions from possessing, using or being anywhere near guns. That's going to raise human rights issues, and Police Minister Stuart Nash knows it.

Several times during Monday's press conference he emphasised the importance of public consultation on where to draw the line, what sort of previous convictions should make a person eligible for an FPO and the extent of police powers to monitor and enforce them.

Explaining the need for FPOs, Mr Nash laid out grim statistics: the number of guns stolen in burglaries increased from 440 in 2010 to 771 last year, in the past 15 months nearly 1050 were stolen. Every month, police were turning up at 200 events where guns were involved.

The consultation process goes on until year end and legislation will have to be drafted fairly smartly after that to get FPOs in law before the election.

Education Minister Chris Hipkins revealed the government's response to the recommendations of the education review it ordered soon after coming into office, and there was no sign of the controversial regional hubs which the report suggested should take over nearly all the functions of school boards.

He has instead chosen to take zoning and enrolment away from schools and put the ministry in charge of it through a new support agency. There will be new criteria for principals and there will be changes to the way school property is managed, but otherwise it's more or less business as usual.

Mr Hipkins was mainly worried about zoning and enrolment. "We've actually got to do a better job of this if we're going to make sure that every kid can attend their local school," he said.

His decision to remove it from schools followed concerns some were manipulating their zones to include wealthy neighbourhoods while excluding closer, disadvantaged areas, RNZ reported.

National's Simon Bridges, always suspicious of the government's intentions, said it seemed ministers were still looking for ways to centralise power and control over education.

There doesn't appear to have been either strong or unfavourable reactions from within the sector, and the Dominion Post summed it up like this in an editorial: "The overall impression is of a response that leaves no-one particularly happy Hipkins will no doubt be happy he has found a solution that is at least politically palatable."

Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway also appears to have found a politically palatable solution to the arranged marriages problem.

Changes initiated by Immigration NZ in May to strictly enforce the rules around visas for spouses coming from India after arranged marriages made it much more difficult to get them, and caused outrage. There were threats to punish Labour at the ballot box and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the change would be reversed - despite support for it from coalition partner New Zealand First.

A neat way has been found to get around this potentially damaging situation. Arranged marriage spouses will be granted three-month culturally arranged marriage visitor visas so they can live here and demonstrate to Immigration NZ's satisfaction that they are in a genuine and stable relationship.

Previously, the culturally arranged visas had applied only when marriages took place in New Zealand, now they will cover marriages in other countries. The department will be making sure those overseas marriages followed cultural tradition.

On Wednesday night Parliament made its final decision on the End of Life Choice Bill. On a vote of 69 to 51 David Seymour's bill passed its third reading and its supporters celebrated in the debating chamber, but whether it becomes law will be decided by a referendum held at the same time as next year's general election.

That will take place alongside a referendum on legalising cannabis, which has raised questions about how much voters can handle at the same time as choosing a government.

Justice Minister Andrew Little is worried about the torrent of information, and misinformation, that supporters and opponents of both issues are going to pour out.

In a bid to counter this, teams of officials in his ministry will prepare neutral, factual information on the End of Life Choice Bill and legalising cannabis.

However, they won't be reporting on misinformation. That will be up to the activists, and they're likely to take exception to much of what their opponents have to say. Mr Little says the Advertising Standards Authority will handle the complaints, and he's far from confident it will make a good job of it.

"The ASA might wise up between now and the early part of next year. I hope they do," he told the New Zealand Herald. "I just hope they understand they have a responsibility when they are regulating advertising for the purposes of a general election and or a referendum."

Mr Little recently lost a case and he cited another: "Somebody complained about an ad that said ice cream made you happy, and they ruled that the ad had to be removed because it was factually incorrect," he said. "You've got to wonder where their heads are at I want to meet the person who had an ice cream and it hasn't made them happy."

Mr Little said the two decisions in quick succession "show they are possibly operating on a different planet". The authority's chief executive, Hilary Souter, said the ASA recognised free speech and differences of political opinion. She was surprised by the minister's comments.

*Peter Wilson is a life member of Parliament's press gallery, 22 years as NZPA's political editor and seven as parliamentary bureau chief for NZ Newswire.

Read the original here:

Week in Politics: Guns, education, immigration and euthanasia - RNZ